write_generated_files_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions '安全写入' (securely write) but does not explain safety details or side effects (e.g., overwriting, permissions). The tool writes files, implying destructive potential, but no disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It conveys purpose efficiently but omits necessary details, making it adequate but not well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, the description does not explain prerequisites, configuration reference, or how the tool fits into the workflow. It is incomplete for a file-writing operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema_description_coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the 'files' parameter structure or 'workspace_root' usage. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema types, which are vague (array of objects with additionalProperties).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (write files), the resource (generated files), and the target (backend/frontend project specified in configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on code generation, comparison, and inspection. However, the term '配置指定的' (specified in configuration) is vague without context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_codegen_scaffold_tool or write_mysql_migration_tool. There are no explicit usage conditions or when-not-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.